Ethanol fuels clash in corn country

Ernst’s statements have been “a surprise to us because I know she’s a farm gal, and she says she’s for things that Iowa’s for,” said Tom Brooks, general manager of Western Dubuque Biodiesel and treasurer of the Iowa Biodiesel Board. He said that Ernst’s “philosophical” statements offer “confusing or conflicting signals.”

“I would say most Iowa voters, especially in the rural areas, which obviously candidate Ernst is trying to get … if she’s not for the RFS, I would say that probably is not going to be something favorable for her,” Brooks said.

‘Voted with us every time’

Ernst, who says she “grew up walking beans, canning food and feeding hogs on our family farm,” wants Iowa growers to know she’s one of them.

“As a rural candidate, the members of Iowa’s agricultural community are more to me than just a significant part of our state’s economy — they are also my neighbors, friends and family,” she said in a written response to questions. “Renewable fuels are important to our farmers, our communities, and our state.”

Ernst has also attacked Obama’s agenda on other fronts that resonate in farm country. She criticizes a proposed EPA water rule that opponents claim would seize control of ditches and farm ponds, and she’s called for cutting off the agency’s funding. Republicans also portray Braley as anti-farmer, seizing on flaps like his Grassley diss, as well as an apparent dispute between Braley and his neighbors over trespassing chickens.

Until recently, Ernst has said little about the ethanol mandate in her campaign. But she offered Braley an opening when she filled out a state Farm Bureau survey during the primaries.

Ernst checked “yes” in favor of the ethanol mandate, as well on renewing tax credits for Iowa’s cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel and wind energy industries. But she appended a cover letter saying she is “philosophically opposed to government subsidies and influences on the private marketplace,” though adding her caveat that she would defend the ethanol program as long as other government subsidies exist.

“If you have a philosophical opposition to something, are you really going to draw a line in the sand if there’s a move to try to kill the Renewable Fuel Standard?” he asked. “How hard are you going to work for something you are opposed to?”

Braley, meanwhile, has detailed his aggressive efforts to get the administration to defend the mandate, including meetings with White House advisers and his delivery of a petition with 100,000 signatures to the EPA. “In fact, there has been no bigger advocate in the U.S. House for the RFS than me,” he wrote in his own Farm Bureau questionnaire.

The Democrat’s supporters had a chance to advance their message while Ernst spent much of July fulfilling Army National Guard duty in Wisconsin. While she was gone, Iowans got a heavy dose of ads describing her as not on board with biofuels.

When she returned, Ernst tried to counteract that message, telling POLITICO this week she that has written to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy urging her not to cut the ethanol mandate.

Ernst’s campaign also pointed to her history of voting in favor of the ethanol industry in the state Senate. In 2011, 2013 and 2014, she voted for bills that provided tax credits and other support for ethanol and biodiesel industries. She also voted for and co-sponsored two “statements” from the Senate urging the federal government to support renewable fuels and the ethanol mandate.

“She’s voted with us every time,” Shaw said. Braley also has “voted with us every time we’ve asked him to,” Shaw said. “He’s been a strong leader on renewable fuels issues out there.”

The two candidates are far apart on many issues, and an influx of outside spending is leading to a boom in negative ads.

Conservative PACs have spent nearly $1.7 million supporting Ernst, with cash coming from American Crossroads, American Heartland PAC, Citizens United, Conservative Majority Fund, the National Rifle Association, Reclaim America PAC, Senate Conservatives Action, Senate Conservatives Fund, Susan B. Anthony List, Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund, the U.S Chamber of Commerce and Vote to Reduce Debt, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Much of that cash was for her GOP primary campaign.

She has also gotten support from ads aired by Americans for Prosperity and other nonprofits that have not yet had to disclose their spending.

A smaller group of liberal and mostly environmental PACs has turned out nearly $2.9 million for Braley, all of it for the general election, including the Environmental Defense Action Fund, the League Of Conservation Voters, billionaire Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate Action, Senate Majority PAC and the Sierra Club.

While Republicans try to paint Braley as a trial lawyer who looks down on farmers, his supporters are doing everything they can to tie Ernst to the oil industry and the Koch brothers.

Americans United for Change is running a radio ad this week saying Ernst is in cahoots with “Big Oil,” which is “spending millions of dollars to put Iowa ethanol out of business,” and pointing to the Washington fundraiser that ExxonMobil’s PAC and the American Petroleum Institute PAC hosted for Ernst on Wednesday.

Another ad by the League of Conservation Voters hit Ernst for threatening to shut down the EPA. But she doesn’t back down from attacking the agency.

“I believe the EPA has put forth extensive rules and regulations that are harmful, overreaching, and ultimately deal with matters that generally can be handled at the state and local level,” Ernst said when asked if she believes the agency should be shut down. “Certainly some functions and programs, like the RFS, must continue at the federal level, but many of those could be handled by other existing agencies.”

Back in Washington

While everyone waits for EPA’s announcement on the mandate, White House adviser John Podesta met with pro-ethanol senators last week to hear out their concerns. The administration made no announcements afterward, although Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said he came out of the meeting expecting to see EPA increase the amount of ethanol that refiners will have to use — an outcome the agency has fairly well telegraphed in recent months.

What’s unclear is whether any increase would be big enough to assuage ethanol producers’ fears for their future.

Washburn, the attorney from the anti-mandate side, argues that the administration is caught in a squeeze between two priorities: Obama’s climate agenda and Democrats’ desire to keep the Senate.

“Podesta is now confronted with two contradictory objectives,” he said. “One is to try and help the fortunes of people like Braley,” and the other to push for further reductions in greenhouse gases.

The big question is when EPA will act. It already gave refiners until Sept. 30 to meet last year’s ethanol mandate, which means it has essentially given itself until then to set the final 2014 numbers.

“If the decision goes our way, we want it as soon as possible,” said Link, the Democratic strategist. “But I don’t think it’s set in stone yet.”

Shaw says he’s not sure what EPA’s upcoming decision will mean for election day, but he suspects Braley may not get as much of a bump as some in Washington hypothesize.

“I hope I’m proven wrong,” Shaw said. “But I expect that most of our industry will be disappointed when the final rule comes out.”